Hey Ron,
Ron said: Which was what all the fuss was about with Bo, it rendered SOL Superfluous. Some think I am full of it, but as of yet no one Is able to demonstrate why they think that, but it does open Up dynamic dialog without conflicting with the in-definability Of the concrete aspect of Dynamic Quality. It explains a lot and brings us together. What disappointed me Was Bo could talk a good game but he couldn't demonstrate A damn thing. Matt: Ya' know, the thing that annoyed me most about Bo was his "no one has demonstrated I'm wrong" way of talking. If you think you are taking up a similar mantle as Bo's (though I might be mistaken), I would leave that particular legacy by the wayside. Ron: You do have a point Matt, that term does issue challenge doesn't it. I mean demonstrate or explain why people feel concepts work or Don't work. Sometimes I spend a lot of time describing why I feel A concept works only to get a "it feels wrong some how" reply. Which is o.k. but it would be nice if they explained why they feel that way then it would give me an opportunity to explore it more thoroughly. I explained to Bo why I felt his SOL failed to explain concepts any better than SOM. He kept stating that it gave MoQ more explanatory power, I inquired as to how. He never gave me an explanation other than it does because I say so. Which was frustrating because I think he was really on to A serious issue. Matt: Why are people so concerned with "demonstration"? The first question you must confront, I would think, is "what would this demonstration look like?" Doing that would cause an articulation of criteria, and in doing that you open yourself up to a discussion of why those criteria and not others. Ron: I think a call for an explanation is justified to support an idea In a pragmatic sense in some cases. I feel I gave a marginally adequate Case for a criteria in the paragraph above the statement of mine You snipped from my post to Marsha, but I did choose my terminology poorly As you noted. It was not my intent to come off like Bo in this regard. But I do welcome any and all critique of the explanation.. I am interested in opening up a dialog on the subject, so far you Seem to be the only one interested, which I appreciate. Perhaps I Am going about it the wrong way as you suggest. I will keep this in Mind in future dialog. Matt: Philosophy is that peculiar act in which criteria and criteria-for-what are all, largely, in the air at the same time. (And, dare I add, the notion of "demonstration" is one that Plato leaned heavily on in his differentiation between rhetoric and dialectic, in the difference between opinion and knowledge, doxa and episteme, opinio and scientia.) Calls for demonstration are cheap, as one is usually allowed, after the challenge is taken up, to wiggle out (because of one's own various rebuttals). Ron: Kinda like Ham and Bo's methods? Matt: If they came attached with criteria, they'd at least be more conducive to continuing the conversation because people would at least know ahead of time what the rules of the game were (though in philosophy, you're always allowed to change them, even mid-game somtimes--unlike, say, primary politics (or so we had thought)). Ron: Just looking for honest exchanges of ideas, but point well taken Matt Thanks for your input. _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy 5 GB of free, password-protected online storage. http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refr esh_skydrive_062008 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
